Category: Stem Cell

Stem cells are cells that have the capacity to subdivide into other cells. They have been found to exist in adults as well as in embryos. In embryos, stem cells function to develop into new organs and tissues while in adults, they function to replace worn out cells such as skin cells. Studies have shown that stem cells have been found in adult organs such as the liver, the kidney and the bone marrow (Murray, 2007).

The discovery of the stem cells and the latest developments on the subject has been received with mixed reactions. There has risen a debate has extended to discussions in the Senate. Scientists insist that more discoveries on this area of medicine have the potential to deal with the most serious of human diseases such as cancer. Some damaged tissues can also be repaired if more research is allowed done in this field of study.

Scientific studies have traced human development from conception to adulthood. Embryonic stem cells form the basis upon which all body organs are formed. These cells have the capacity to develop into any cell in the human body and perform the functions as are performed by those cells. This means that a stem cell can develop into a brain cell to perform the function of a brain cell. The process by which stem cells develop into other cells with special functionalities is known as differentiation (Ho et al, 2006).

This development is what scientists are pursuing to suggest that some diseased tissues or organs can be repaired in a field of study known as regenerative medicine. It has been suggested that if stem cells are identified and the right conditions found for them to develop into specific cells, thy can be used to develop cells to from certain tissues which would help cure fatal diseases. In adults, stem cells are found to generate replacements for cells that wear out with time.

Stem cells have some distinct properties that distinguish them from all other cells in the body. First, they are unspecialized. They lack any tissue specific structures that enable them to perform specific functions. On their own, they cannot perform any function in the human body. A stem cell cannot for example perform the function of a nerve cell since it lacks the structures that enable a nerve cell to perform its function. This property distinguishes these cells from other cells in that other cells have some defined structures and roles.

The second property of stem cells is that they can develop into specialized cells in the differentiation process. This process is controlled by both external and internal signals to determine the type of specialized cells that will result from the process. It has been found that adult cells develop into cell types of the tissue in which they are found. This means that blood cells can only be formed from stem cells found in the bone marrow. However, studies have also shown that some stem cells differentiate into specialized cells of a different type than the organs or place in the body in which they are found.

The third property that is descriptive of stem cells is their ability to divide and renew themselves over time. The resulting cells can be unspecialized or specialized. Stem cells have the capacity to differentiate asymmetrically into two, a specialized cell and a stem cell. This phenomenon has led scientists to study the stem cells with a view to gaining an in-depth understanding of what is comprised of these cells.

Scientists have some numerous important considerations to make in their studies on stem cells. The conditions under which stem cells develop into some specialized cells have to be known if this field of study will help in repairing some tissues. The role of the external environment in the development of stem cells into specific cells has to be known. This will enable scientists to know the environmental conditions they have to provide in their laboratory experiments. This should ultimately allow more understanding on what triggers the differentiation process. Such knowledge would be used to stimulate the stem cells to generate needed cells. Such knowledge could also explain the causes that trigger cancer. Also of interest is whether stem cells that are found in different organs can generate cells other than for the organ in which they are found. This may enable scientists to know how to induce stem cells in certain organs to generate needed specialized cells.

The developments on the embryonic stem cells have raised much controversy. These cells are derived from embryos developed from eggs fertilized in the laboratory, otherwise called in vitro fertilization. The difference with this type of fertilization and the natural one is that the former takes place in the laboratory while the other takes place in the womb. After five days, the stem cells that form the blastocyst, a mass of human embryonic stem cells, are excreted and used for scientific studies. It is not allowed to grow into a foetus and later a human life. This has been the subject of discussion on when a human’s life begins and whether the termination of such young life constitutes an abortion. These ethical questions have been brought to the fore by religious leaders majorly the Roman Catholics and Protestants. These groups continue to agitate that these ethical issues be sorted first before more advancement is done (Farley, 2001).

The advancement in knowledge in this stem cells field presents much benefit to human medicine. This area of biology will enable transplantation therapies in which specific cell types will be grown in culture and later transplanted in patients to perform specific functions. It also offers potential for lots of scientific information, which can be built upon to advance technology. Cell therapy would also be used for the treatment of some neural diseases such as Parkinson’s disease, Huntington’s disease and Alzheimer’s disease. Stem cells could be used to repair damaged neurons (Murray, 2007). There are also possibilities that a treatment for AIDS could be found. Even brain and spinal cord diseases can be treated using stem cells knowledge.

The ethical issues raised led to the formulation of a regulatory framework to guard against misuse of this important area of study. According to the National Institute of Health, the federal policy restricts federal funding for research on stem cells to only those researches whose derivation process was initialized before 9^th August 2001. Further, the embryo must have been created for reproductive purposes and that they were no longer needed. Also, consent must first be obtained for the donation of the embryo and that no financial inducements may be involved. The policy only concerns Federal funding, the policy is silent on privately funded research. This leaves room for private researchers to continue with a research regardless of the ethical standards set. It can in fact be stated that reproductive medicine is scantly regulated in the US.

On the international scale, there are no universally agreed upon rules that have been set to for nations to observe. There are only basic principles upon which ethical and other societal issues should be addressed. It is agreed that the society has to be well informed of the implications of current knowledge in stem cell biology (Kootrakoo, 2004). Complaints have been raised by the pioneers of this field of medicine on the role played by the media in distorting information. This would enable the society to deal with arising issues in a more informed way. It would also guide respective countries in developing local policies that satisfy dissenting views to an equal extent. Just like the US policy, consent has to be sought from the donors and the embryo must have been for research purposes for the stem cells to be extracted (Holland, 2001).

The human embryo stem cell research has much of its support from the scientists themselves. Because of their exposure to the numerous human complications, which they are at times unable to solve, the scientists see this area of research as offering an opportunity to explain the hardest of medical complications. And they do not blindly support the stem cells research, they admit that there are many issues not yet explained but with time and with good funding, solutions for some medical complications could be found. We could understand the position of the scientists since they are the ones who handle medical complications. Scientists are willing to dialogue with proponents to ensure they move along with the society and the opponents should also offer to listen (Laughlin, 2003).

The study on stem cells has given rise to many ethical issues. Nevertheless, the field offers much opportunity to explain some life threatening medical complications. Such development would be helpful to the entire human race because they will be better equipped to deal with diseases. I would encourage that more studies on the subject be carried out and that the ethical issues be addressed.

References

Farley, M. A. (2001) Roman Catholics view on Research involving Human Embryonic Stem Cells.

Ho., A. D., Hoffman, R. & Zanjani, E. D. (2006). Stem Cell Transplantation. Weinbeim: WILEY-VCH Publications.

Holland, S. & Lebacqz, K & Zoloth, L. (2001). The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics and Public Policy. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Kootrakoo, V. N. (2004). Contemporary Issues and Debates in EU Policy: The European Union and International Relations Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Laughlin, M. J. & Lazarus, H. M. (2003). Allogeneic Stem Cell Transplantation: Clinical Research and Practice. Totowa: Humana Press.

Murray, B. (2007). Understanding Stem Cell Biology. Web.

National Institutes of Health. (2007). Stem Cell Information. Web.

Abstract

The mammalian blood system is made of more than ten different cell types. One of the distinct cells in the blood or hematopoietic stem cell (HSC). HSC has the ability of differentiation and self-renewal. According to research studies, mature blood cells have a short life span. Due to this, HSC is required to continuously generate the right number of each type of blood cell to sustain the body. While generating the cells, HSC must ensure a balance between self-renewal and differentiation. In this paper, the author will provide an in-depth analysis of blood stem cells’ self-renewal and differentiation.

Introduction

Blood cell’s primary responsibility is the maintenance and immune protection of all types of cells in the body (Orkin & Zon, 2008). Due to this functionality, the blood and skin cells’ pose the greatest ability of differentiation and self-renewal. The blood stem cells are also referred to as hematopoietic stem cells (HSC). Apart from the ability to self-renew and differentiate, HSC produce a number of specialized components such as red and white blood cells through haematopoiesis.

The Stem cell concept was initially proposed by McCulloch and Till in the early 1960s. The two were analyzing the bone marrow to determine which components were responsible for blood regeneration. Ten days after transplanting syngeneic bone marrow cells in experimental mice, the duo discovered the formation of cellular colonies in the specimens’ spleens. Examination of the colonies showed that a minute sub-population of the bone marrow cells had two distinct characteristics (Kelly, 2007). The properties include the ability to self-renew and produce multiple myeloerythroid cells. The findings paved way for the two defining features of stem cells.

Since the initial success studies by Till and McCulloch, the field of blood stem cell research has undergone great expansion. Numerous experiments over the decades have led to an in-depth understanding of the stem cell concept. For example, findings from different studies reveal HSCs are the only cells within the hematopoietic structure with the ability to differentiate and self-renew (Roeder, Horn, Sieburg, Cho, Muller-Sieburg, & Loeffler, 2008). In addition, experts in the field have been able to discover that HSCs are responsible for generating lymphoid and myeloid lineages of blood cells.

Today, researchers continue to study more about blood stem cell self-renew and differentiation with the aim of discovering new ways in which stem cells can be used in the medical field.

Characteristics of Blood Stem Cells

Blood stem cells have two primary characteristics. The features include multi-potency and self-renewal.

Self-Renewal

Self-renewal refers to the process by which at least one of the two daughter cells remains identical to the mother during division. The procedure is used by blood stem cells to generate more tissues and ensure the required population is maintained (Davis & Halton, 2011). Scientists’ reports reveal self-renewal occurs in the stem cell recess in the bone marrow. Due to this, the signals present in this spot are considered to be essential in duplication.

The process of division takes place in two ways. According to Tang (2012) the mechanisms include obligatory asymmetric replication and stochastic differentiation. Obligatory asymmetric replication is a process where a stem cell splits into one mother cell indistinguishable to the original. On its part, stochastic differentiation is characterized by the development of one stem cell into two differentiated daughter cells.

Self-renewal is controlled by the interactions of cell intrinsic molecular pathways (Kolonin & Simmons, 2012). The conduits contain extrinsic signals exhibited by the cell’s microenvironment. Due to this, the natural environment for the blood stem cells is referred to as the niche. The spot is the tissue-specific anatomical habitation. Roeder et al. (2008) note the dwelling changes within the cell development course. In addition, the niche offers the required milieu for regulated alterations between self-renewal, multi-potency, and stem cell quiescence. When exposed to the right signals, stem cells move from the dormant state and undergo through symmetrical or asymmetrical cell divisions. During the development stage, numerous tissue stem cells are often generated. The cells attain the ability of self-renewal and maintain the aptitude during the sturdy period of an adult organ (Taupin, 2011). Once in a steady state, the process of blood stem cell replication can only be triggered during regeneration when there is a tissue injury.

Differentiation

Stem cell differentiation is also referred to as potency. The process is termed as the ability to split into dissimilar cell types. There are different methods of differentiation. Orkin and Zon (2008) claim the appropriate technique is determined by the type of stem cell, the species, somatic cell type, and lineages. When separating Blood stem cells, it is important to monitor the progress and analyze the phenotype of the cells. Identities and lineages of differentiated cells can be examined using various PCR methods. The techniques include western blotting, cell sorting, and biomarker analysis.

Scientists differentiate blood stem cells in various ways. The techniques used include signal inhibition and three-dimensional culture. Other methods entail analyzing growth factors, cell culture substrate, and co-culture environments. In Cell Culture Substrate, stem cells are cultured on extracellular matrix proteins to trigger differentiation (Tang, 2012). Cells are known to generate signals that neighboring cells can respond to. Due to this, scientists grow blood stem cells together with other tissues that produce growth factors responsible for activating differentiation process.

According to Kelly (2007) blood stem differentiation processes produces a number of different cells. They include omnipotent, multipotent, unipotent, pluripotent, and oligopotent. Each form of cell produced exhibits unique characteristics.

Omnipotent are cells produced during the initial division of the fertilized egg. The blood stem cells can separate into extra-embryonic and embryonic cell types (Davis & Halton, 2011). In addition, omnipotent have the ability to form an absolute, feasible organism. The cells are also generated from the blending of an egg and sperm cell.

Multipotent blood stem cells differentiate into various cell types. However, they separate into cells which share almost similar traits.

Unipotent blood stem cells produce one kind of cell (Roeder et al., 2008). However, they have the ability to self-renew themselves and appear different from non-stem cells.

Pluripotent stem cells are linked to totipotents. Tang (2012) claim the tissues can differentiate into just about all cells in the body except placenta. However, the cells cannot sustain a full organism development. The pluripotents instigate as inner cell mass (ICM) tissues inside a blastocyst. Research findings reveal scientists lay bare pluripotency by offering evidence of steady developmental prospective in cases of protracted culture. Oligopotent blood stem cells can only separate into a small number of tissue types (Orkin & Zon, 2008). The cell forms include lymphoid and myeloid.

Essential Niche for Blood Stem Cells

Extensive research studies reveal there are three different sources of blood stem cells. The sources are bone marrow, peripheral blood, and umbilical cord. The three areas have been proved to support proper self-renewal and differentiation of blood stem cells.

Bone Marrow

The bone marrow was the first source of Blood stem cells (Taupin, 2011). Experiments on specimen such as mice proved the marrow to be an ideal spot for stem cell production. After successful studies on mice, doctors started performing bone marrow transplants on humans by drawing out marrow cells from donors. The collected blood stem cells take over the responsibility of generating blood cells when injected in the patient’s body (Kolonin & Simmons, 2012).

Peripheral Blood

Blood stem cells can be acquired from the bloodstream. To make the blood stream an ideal niche for self-renewal and differentiation, certain proteins are used to move stem cells from the bone marrow into the blood (Kelly, 2007). The process allows isolation of enough cells to sustain the body.

Umbilical Cord

In the late 1980 and early 1990s the umbilical cord was discovered to be a rich source of blood stem cells. The cells self-renew and differentiate supporting the fetus during pregnancy (Davis & Halton, 2011).

Conclusion

HSCs were the initial stem cells to be discovered. Since the first test by Till and McCulloch majors steps have been witnessed in stem cell field. More areas where the cells can be found in the human body have been detected. In addition numerous methods of activating cell self-renewal and differentiation have been formulated. The progress in the field by biologists has helped to control a number of diseases such as Leukemia and anemia. Today, scientists are striving to develop new ways of producing large amounts of blood stem cells in the laboratories. The experts are developing means of growing specialized cells with the ability of self-renewal and differentiation.

References

Davis, B., & Halton, C. (2011). Perspectives in stem cell research. New York: Nova Science.

Kelly, E. (2007). Stem cells. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Kolonin, M., & Simmons, P. (2012). Stem cell mobilization: Methods and protocols. New York: Humana Press.

Orkin, S., & Zon, L. (2008). Hematopoiesis: An evolving paradigm for stem cell biology. Cell, 132(4), 631-644.

Roeder, I., Horn, K., Sieburg, H., Cho, R., Muller-Sieburg, C., & Loeffler, M. (2008). Characterization and quantification of clonal heterogeneity among hematopoietic stem cells: A model-based approach. Blood, 112(13), 4874-4883.

Tang, Y. (2012). Genetics of stem cells. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press.

Taupin, P. (2011). Stem cells & regenerative medicine. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Topic Confirmation

The controversy on stem cell research provides an ideal research ground to understand the views of the society on scientific developments that adopt holistic approaches from the Wikipedia site. The selection of this topic was informed by the need to understand the society in terms of beliefs, norms, and views on scientific development. Thus, this analytical treatise attempts to explicitly review the controversies surrounding stem cell research to understand its current position in the society and its possible merits against demerits in the progress of humanity from a personal response point from the Wikipedia site.

The first edit I explored on the Wikipedia site was the moral, social and legal implications of stem cell research. Apparently, the author of this edit asserted that the moral implication concerning human cloning has been avoided, though has rarely been scrutinized with any strictness. This post illustrates possible benefits and malpractices of stem cell research and draws moral principles that should be adopted. The post defends principles of human reproductive rights.

The article also explains how stem cell research is incompatible with human dignity and rights. As I was reading the post, the most controversial aspect that arose was how to understand the legality of stem cell theory since it still remains as a concern to many. Even though stem cell research may provide a powerful method of treating medical disorders, the post concluded that there are still numerous immoral and unethical problems that need to be addressed. In my opinion, this post is critical in revealing the moral, ethical, legal issues that has catalyzed the controversy and stand between the protagonists and antagonists of stem cell research. Specifically, the post is comprehensive on the legal, moral, and ethical implication of stem cell research and offers an unbiased approach to the topic of discussion.

The second edit I explored from the Wikipedia was a video link on the developments in adult stem cell research over the years. The video claims that the practice is more useful due to the fact that it alleviates many diseases. I was surprised that the video suggests that misdirected cell may pose a very big health problem in the patient’s body, especially for cells destined for brain or spinal cord. Another major drawback to this therapy is that stem cells have one thing in common with the cancer cells, that is, their ability to multiply indefinitely.

The main fear exposed in the video was that the use of stem cells to treat a disease may result in the seeding of cancer throughout the body. Under the edit button, I posted a comment that seeding may also pose a much greater health risk to the patients. Besides, I inserted a short paragraph to the effect that stem cell therapy is an intensive way of treatment as the stem cells has to be extracted from the source, isolated, stimulated to differentiate into desired cells, grown in culture and finally injected into the patients’ body. In my opinion, the video offers a scientific approach to understanding the basics of stem cell research. It is important to review the developments of stem cell research so as to develop an independent, informed, and neutral explanation to the controversies surrounding adult stem cell research.

In the third section of the Wikipedia, I came across an audio link that is supported by some literature on the practical approach on how adult stem cells may be useful in treating heritable diseases. The blog stated that stem cells are majorly harvested from three to five day human embryos. Many cells can be used during culturing until desired outcome is attained in treatment of hereditary illnesses. Referring to several scientific research studies, the author noted that Stem cell therapy can be used to curb medical disorders affecting blood cells such as leukemia, ADA deficiency or damage to the spinal code (Waters and Ronald 39).

Functionally, Stem cells have capacity to self renew as well as to generate differentiate cells with different functions such as heart, skin, lung and nerve system: These differentiated cells are what make up an organism. The therapy of Stem cell is based on this concept. Patients with medical disorders would be injected with cultured stem cells directed to the affected areas. The cells are expected to proliferate and differentiate to correct the disorder. In my opinion, this audio recording provides firsthand information on how adult stem cells may be the next remedy towards treating hereditary illnesses such as leukemia. This information is vital in offering a protagonist view of benefits of adult stem cell research. In order to make the research paper complete, it is important to consider the protagonist and antagonist views.

In the fourth section of the Wikipedia document, the subtopic on human cloning as a malpractice activity that has moral implications to various religious faiths caught my attention. The blog illustrates different perceptions raised by various religious dominations such as Protestantism, Catholicism, Islamic religion, Hindu, and Jewish community. The blog describes how human cloning is unlawful act according to God’s decree.

Nevertheless, the blog also discussed different religious faiths that have divergent views concerning human cloning. Actually, the matter concerns diverse disciplines such as law, physic philosophy theology and biology (Voneky and Rudijer 32). As I was reading through the blog, I discovered that the position taken by the author is that stem cell research is unethical. In my opinion, this blog is vital in revealing the rationale from a supernatural point of view on why stem cell research defies human dignity. This source offers an antagonist view of the topic of research.

The last section I explored on the Wikipedia document was a subtopic on the fundamental questions associated to human cloning through reflections of religious, cultural and regional aspects that contradict biotechnology. This section discusses cross-cultural perspectives, challenges and benefits of bioethics. The blog is focused to debate about bioethical matters not only in domestic regions but also in international domain. In addition, the blog discusses uncertainty concerning damage of human embryo due to the process of human cloning and how the same has raised fundamental questions concerning moral implications. In my opinion, the blog is comprehensive in laying claims whether cloning embryos at early stage (in order to generate stem cells) might be morally right or not (Roetz 24).

As I was reading through this literature, I was convinced that the blog is scientific and provides important findings in interpreting the moral dilemma that has been associated with human cloning. In addition, the blog provides an insight to the moral obligations of those involved in stem cell research.

The last literature I checked on the Wikipedia a subtopic critical and holistic approach towards understanding the ethical issues surrounding stem cell research in order to relate the position taken by protagonists and antagonists of stem cell research. The blog argue that the idea of killing embryo has raised a lot of controversies over stem cell therapy research. It is also perceived to be very immoral and unethical (Kunich 13).

In addition, the blog present the views of opponents of embryonic stem cell research. I was tempted to edit this post since I felt a desire to expand on the topic. As I result, I posted a short paragraph which states that it is wrong to use human embryos for any kind of research or medical therapy and have characterized the practice as “high tech cannibalism”. Besides, I summarized the numerous ethical problems, from one country to another and the legislation to control the use and spread of this technology in my post.

My post presented the reasons why certain countries have not adopted therapeutic stem cell research such as worsening patient’s health when they are compelled to wait several days in order to get required tissues. Indeed, if therapeutic cloning is practiced, the authors argue that many casualties can easily obtain required body tissues. However, I was opposed to therapeutic cloning because the practice is perceived as murder case. Moreover, I proposed that the therapeutic cloning may lead to biological problems such as formation of Tumors or other health disorders and complications.

Generally, the experience was aware some as I explored one subtopic after another on the controversial topic. The site is ideal for any person interested in understanding different views on stem cell research. The site is user friendly, very interactive, and allows for open discussions through the edit button. I made observations and posted comments across the document.

Works Cited

Kunich, John. the Naked Clone: How Cloning Bans Threatens our Personal Rights. Westport: Praeger, 2003. Print.

Roetz, Heiner. Cross-Cultural Issues in Bioethics: the Example of Human Cloning. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2006. Print.

Voneky, Silja, and Wolfrum Rudijer. Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004. Print.

Waters, Brent, & Turner Ronald. God and the Embryo: Religious Voices on Stem Cells and Cloning. Georgetown University Press: Washington, DC, 2003. Print.

Abstract

Embryonic stem cells have been used over the years to treat or reduce chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and cardiac ailments. Stem cells have the potential to save millions of lives by using them to grow body parts for people in need.

However, its use has stirred ethical debates with many arguing that the use of stem cells does not give reverence to the sanctity of life. The discussion in this paper will show that despite the opposition, the use of embryonic stem cells has played a central role in saving lives of people in need unlike other regimens, which have been used and failed.

Introduction

The use of embryonic stem (ES) cells is one of the important medical innovations of the 21st century. Studies indicate that this technique can be used to treat over seventy major ailments, which millions of people are diagnosed with across the world. ES cells have won great support from most organizations such as the American Medical Association (AMA).

Currently, about 68% of Americans supports the ES cells research. Additionally, 64% holds that the federal funding on studies examining ES can be used to eliminate or control chronic ailments. Nonetheless, ES has not been immune to controversy with critics questioning the moral logic behind the damaging of human embryos to get the ES cells. This paper defends the use of ES cells by countering the claims raised by the critics.

Overview of Embryonic Stem Cell

ES cells refer to undifferentiated cells that have the potential to cure various ailments and conditions due to their ability to develop numerous kinds of cells in human beings. They are pluripotent, which implies that they can form the various types of cells that are required for proper functioning of the body.

A huge volume of ES cells can be developed from stem cell lines, which are also pluripotent and they can help in the development of tissues though they are unable to inculcate existence in an organism. For instance, when stem cells are administered to a patient suffering from cardiac attack, they will shift to the area that has been destroyed, multiply, and separate to develop new cardiac muscles.

In another case, if the stem cells are introduced to a patient with tumor, they can induce the growth of new neurons that can then kill the shifting cancer cells. Most patients and medical practitioners believe that replacement cell treatment can be the ultimate solution for eliminating chronic cases such as Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes (Friedman et al., 2012).

Nonetheless, the sources through which these stem cells are retrieved have been a point of departure for most of opponents of this medical technology. ES cells are retrieved from human embryos, which are referred to as blastocysts. The process entails disassembling the embryo to get stem cells that are located in the internal parts of the mass.

Subsequently, this aspect has led to the emergence of two opposing sides – those who support unconditional reverence for life and those who oppose the idea (Lachmann, 2001). According to Murrell, et al. (2013), there is a common miscomprehension between these two groups regarding the actual sources of stem cells.

Further, the media exacerbates these misunderstandings by giving a general definition of stem cells without considering the various types of stem cells, viz. adult and embryonic as well as placental stem cells (Stachowiak & Tzanakakis, 2011). This miscomprehension is dangerous for the debate as those who advocate for ES cell research may ignore some remarkable achievements that are made by other non-embryonic cells.

Conversely, the opponents may also end up opposing other researches that do not involve ES cells. Hence, it would be of significance to define some of the other sources of stem cells to have a centered argument.

Adult stem cells are undifferentiated cells located all over the body. They are responsible for the replacement and maintenance of tissues. For instance, the stem cells “located in the bone marrow are responsible for the production of red blood cells, platelet, as well as white blood cells” (Hunt, 2008, p.221).

Adult stem cells reside in the heart as well as brain, and thus if regulated properly in the laboratory, they could be used for transplantation-oriented treatment. The human placenta contains a huge volume of stem cells that can be easily retrieved and they have the ability to renew and maintain plasticity.

In support of Embryonic Stem Cells

One of key advantages of ES cells is that they are totipotent, and thus they have the capability to form any type of cells. They also have a higher rate of multiplication than the adult cells when in unspecialized condition prior to research. The process of deriving adult cells is complex and most of them posses DNA aberrations unlike ES cells.

Though most adult cells are successfully accepted when administered in the body, ES cells are generally flexible and they can be applied for the treatment of various ailments (Lachmann, 2001). ES cells do not reverse sanctity of life despite embryos being complete human. One should question whether parents have the ethical responsibility to develop the embryos- being aware that some embryos might die.

If the development of extra embryos is ethically wrong, then the issue of if parents have the authority to remove embryos from cryogenic tanks so that they die is debatable. A number of facts can affirm that parents have an ethical responsibility to develop extra embryos (Stachowiak & Tzanakakis, 2011).

The right to procreate is arguably one of the most significant rights of human beings. It sustains the human race. It creates a feeling of identity and distinction. Moreover, doctrines of personality and identity are central in the description of moral responsibilities.

However, it can never be inferred that procreation is an unconditional right. Like many other rights, at times, the right to reproduce is subdued by other demands and pressures in the society (Zhao et al., 2013). In the absence of these limitations, human beings have a moral responsibility to reproduce.

Considering that the right to reproduction is fundamental, what happens to the barren people or those that face complications during birth? Medical practitioners have developed other assisted-reproductive technologies such as artificial insemination to help in such scenarios. Furthermore, arguably, it is a moral right for such patient to seek any type treatment that will help in having children safely.

In essence, society will endorse any means that help in protecting human life. There is minimal difference between infertility treatment that involves administration of drugs or corrective surgery and one that entails non-coital conception (Stachowiak & Tzanakakis, 2011). Indeed, they all involve the interference with of human reproductive system in pursuit of saving life and moral distinction the processes are minute.

If the use of ART allows parents to enjoy their moral right, then it should be fully endorsed, and it then follows that In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) processes should also be endorsed. However, various cases of IVF have failed and doctors have been forced to do egg retrieval, fertilization, as well as implantation tests before they have one successful embryo.

However, in the medical field, any type of treatment that is dangerous to a non-consenting third party should be avoided. Nonetheless, this principle is debatable. For instance, if a woman cannot have children due to anatomical problems hindering embryo implantation, should the woman be morally prevented from having sex following her complication? In line with such thoughts, it would also be morally right to prohibit her from using IVF.

Hence, the woman would live a sex and childfree life. Essentially, this move would be denying her ethical right to reproduction. Therefore, this position will be wrong. Under IVF treatment, medical practitioners are aware that they are developing embryos that have scanty chances of developing, but that should not be the reason to denying one the right to procreate (Schuurhuis et al., 2013).

Since assisted reproduction technologies help infertile women and those with reproduction complication to get children, it can be considered as morally acceptable. Moreover, if the creation of extra embryos increases the chances of having a successful child, then parents should have the liberty to create the extra embryos to be used in deriving ES cells (Stachowiak & Tzanakakis, 2011).

Indeed, it would be important for the opponents of ES cells’ research to respond to questions such as – if IVF is permitted to be morally right, why is ES cell research unethical?

Patients have a moral right to determine the treatment of their choice. For instance, patients who are suffering terminal illnesses such as cancer should have the right to decide if they want to go for euthanasia or not. The concept of bodily dignity and respect has been a key principle in the American law.

For instance, under the tort law, treating patients without seeking their authority is considered unethical, and it amounts to battery. This assertion implies that it become a social norm for people to refuse a type of treatment that they do not desire. This norm is not limited to the legal field as it is widely accepted in the medical field (Whittington, 2012).

In the medical profession, the American Medical Association (AMA) allows patients to refuse treatment, if in their discretion, it is likely to injure as opposed to benefitting them. The religious society also preach a similar view by emphasizing that if the patient conceives that the treatment does not give realistic hope, then s/he should have the liberty to forfeit it.

The secular society has a popular consensus that patients should not be mandated to medication if the treatment is simply life sustaining, but not curative (Zhao et al., 2013). In any case, withdrawal from such treatment would not be depicted as the cause of patient’s demise.

If patients have the liberty to withdraw from non-curative treatment, does it mean that third parties can make that decision on their behalf? Amazingly, legal, moral, and secular views indicate that a third party can make a medical decision on behalf of the patient in certain circumstances after considering the association between the two as well as the condition of the patient.

In making the decision, the third party may take one of the two approaches – surrogate or interest of the patient. Under the surrogate approach, the third party “expresses the wishes of the patient earlier explained to him or her” (Friedman et al., 2012, p.506). If the patient had earlier been in a situation to make a rational decision before being incapacitated, s/he might have had his/her desires.

The third party expresses these desires. On the other hand, in some situations, the patient is unable to make discreet decisions, and thus s/he relies entirely on other individuals to make decisions on his/her behalf (Sweetman, 2010). The third party thereby makes a decision in best interest of the patient.

The third party must be somebody who is closely related to the patient – possibly the next of kin. In the case of children, the next of kin is the parents. Conventionally, parents can make decisions on whether their children can proceed on with or stop taking life-sustaining medication.

Nonetheless, parents have no right to prevent their children from getting fundamental healthcare. Conventionally, “life begins at conception” (Atala et al., 2011, p.84); hence, embryos are living beings, and thus they are similar to children. Therefore, parents can make decisions on their behalf (Kelly, 2007).

Embryonic stem cells are not expensive. There is a popular notion among the opponents of ES cells research that it is costly; hence, the poor cannot afford it. This presumption can be easily overruled. ES cells, being pluripotent as stated earlier, are flexible, and thus they can be administered in various tissues such as bone and skin.

Their brilliant capability of transformation has been the main reason why stakeholders urge the federal government to fund ES cell research. The numbers of embryonic cells that can be created in a given laboratory are infinite (Lanza & Atala, 2013). This aspect indicates that ES cells can easily be obtained unlike other types of stem cells such as adult stem cells, making it a cheap and easily accessible resource of cells.

ES cells have no huge difference from organ transplantation. Various groups in the society view organ transplantation as an ethical practice. Heart transplants had initially faced opposition, but over the years, the practice has come to gain acceptance from a section of society.

Similarly, if it can be proved that ES cells have some concepts similar to organ transplantation, then it would right to annul all the ethical questions that have emerged in modern times. Transplantation often occurs in two forms, viz. cadaveric and living-donor transplantation. The latter involves those who willfully accept to share their body organs such as kidney with other people.

Conversely, cadaveric transplantation entails the donation of organs from victims of brain death (Clevers, 2011). The patient is not completely dead during brain death until when the life-supporting treatment is terminated whereon the required organ is removed. This exercise takes place following the procedures set up by a hospital.

Consequently, patients are not viewed as a source of retrieving various organs, but as human beings who are equally important as other individuals. The decision to terminate the life-support system is made by either the patient or the next of kin.

On the other hand, frozen embryos are composed of undifferentiated cells rather than organs. However, these undifferentiated cells are similar to organs as they help in the development of the organs. Moreover, the retrieval of the cells leads to the biological demise of embryo just the same way the removal of organs from patients causes their demise.

Embryonic cells are like the small parts of tissues such as skin that adults donate. In other words, ES cells are similar to organs retrieved from children who depend on their parents to make a decision for them. Hence, just as parents can decide if the organs of their children can be harvested, they equally have a right to decide on behalf of embryos to give the embryo cells.

Conclusion

Medical research is rapidly creating new ways of treating chronic ailments, comprehending physiological procedures, and enhancing medical knowledge. Even though science has helped people to accomplish a number of seemingly impossible feats, it does not make such actions utterly ethical. ES cells provide a remarkable opportunity for assisting people in need such as cancer and diabetes patients.

However, if not handled carefully, it may raise ethical issues. Hence, it is necessary to seal all loopholes that may stir ethical criticism. Strict policies should be imposed to regulate the funding of ES cells research. Nonetheless, this aspect does not imply that the ES cell research should be banned.

The ES debate should be approached with moderation. Biomedical scientists should focus their ideas on how to use different types of stem cells that are more flexible than the ES cells, which will be a vibrant idea for the medical field. Meanwhile, the ES cells should be used to help those in need.

References

Atala, A., Lanza, R., Nerem, R., & Thompson, J. (2011). Principles of Regenerative Medicine. Burlington, MA: Academic Press.

Clevers, H. (2011). The cancer stem cell: premises, promises and challenges. Nature medicine, 17(3), 313-319.

Friedman, G., Cassady, K., Beierle, E., Markert, J., & Gillespie, Y. (2012). Targeting pediatric cancer stem cells with oncolytic virotherapy. Pediatric research, 71(4), 500-510.

Hunt, S. (2008). Controversies in Treatment Approaches: Gene Therapy, IVF, Stem Cells, and Pharmacogenomics. Nature Education, 1(1), 221-222.

Kelly, E. (2007). Stem Cells (Health and Medical Issues today). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Lachmann, P. (2001). Stem cell research: why is it regarded as a threat? EMBO reports, 2(3), 165 – 168.

Lanza, R. & Atala, A. (2013). Essentials of Stem Cell Biology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Murrell, W., Palmero, E., Bianco, J., Stangeland, B., Joel, M., Paulson, L.,…Langmoen, A. (2013). Expansion of multipotent stem cells from the adult human brain. PloS ONE, 8(8), 1-23.

Schuurhuis, G., Meel, M., Wouters, F., Min, L., Terwijn, M., Jonge, N.,…Smit, L. (2013).

Normal Hematopoietic Stem Cells within the AML Bone Marrow have a distinct and Higher ALDH Activity Level than Co-Existing Leukemic Stem Cells. PloS ONE, 8(11), 1-15.

Stachowiak, M., & Tzanakakis, S. (2011). Stem Cells: From Mechanisms to Technologies. Singapore: World Scientific.

Sweetman, B. (2010). Religion and Science: An Introduction. New York, NY: Continuum Press.

Whittington, R. (2012). Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Pragmatic Roman Catholic’s Defense. Christian Bioethics: Non-Ecumenical Studies In Medical Morality, 18(3), 235-251.

Zhao, Y., Jiang, Z., Zhao, T., Ye, M., Hu, C., Zhou, H.,…Li, H. (2013). Targeting insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes via immune modulation of cord blood-derived multipotent stem cells (CB-SCs) in stem cell educator therapy: Phase I/II clinical trial. BMC Medicine, 11(1), 1-13.

Stem cell research is no ordinary scientific experiment such as the Wright Brothers attempting to invent the first airplane or Jonas Salk attempting to develop the first polio vaccine. Stem cell research is a controversial topic because it promises so much but at the same time requires a steep price to pay for something that has yet to prove it is worth the trouble.

This is because stem cell research promises to cure degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer’s and scoliosis but the same time the cure requires the destruction of human embryonic stem cells that can only be had after a sperm fertilizes the egg and turn into an ovum, the first step in the development of a human baby. This is why this nation is divided regarding the proposal that the Federal Government should expand federal funding on stem cell research.

There is a reason why the Bush administration decided to limit funding for this particular endeavor. First of all, stem cell research is an experiment that does not sit well with many people. On the other hand many find it difficult to understand why a potential solution to debilitating diseases should not be pursued.

The line has been drawn in the sand and each side of the debate must present their case clearly so that the Federal Government must reconsider their stance of limiting funding and banning the harvesting more stem cells from human embryos.

In Support of Expanding Federal Funding

In the latter part of the 20^th century scientists discovered a way to isolate and then cultivate stem cells that taken from human embryos. These were called totipotent cells and this means that these are undifferentiated cells and can be developed further to any type of cell needed by the body. As a result scientists believed that stem cells can be used as a way to replace cells lost by the body because of degenerative diseases. But more data was needed and therefore funding from the government.

Due to the moral and ethical problem surrounding such types of research the Bush Administration created a compromise. Limited federal funding was authorized but with limitations – the funds that will be released by the Federal Government must only be applied to existing stem cells lines that were already under the authority of the government.

Limited funds appropriated to stem cell research is not the only problem why there are those asking the lifting of the ban on stem cell research and increase funding for the same. They argue that in 2005 it was discovered that the few remaining lines of stem cells available and eligible in for research in accordance to government guidelines were contaminated with a molecule that came from mice.

It was also pointed out that without the active support of government stem cell research will not succeed. There was the assertion that private funding follows the lead of the federal government. On the other hand it was also made clear that there are private institutions and other states that would continue with their pursuit.

States like California took the initiative in raising funds to enhance stem cell research that was already started in their respective state regardless of federal funding. Supporters added that this is not the best way to go forward because without a central authority it is possible that results will be less efficient and non-standard; in other words research will be mediocre.

In Opposition to Expanding Federal Funding

On the opposite side of the fence the argument was much simpler. They only gave two: 1) stem cell research is tantamount to killing humans because the fertilization of an egg cell by a sperm cell will result not only in a basic building block of life but considered to be a human being no matter how simple and how small it may seem; and 2) there is no hard evidence that can truly demonstrate that stem cell research can produce significant results such as cure someone with Alzheimer’s (Dahnke & Dreher, 2006).

This means that federal funds will be thrown into a blackhole that continues to absorb billions of dollars without results (McCartney, 2004). It is also difficult to assuage the fear of the public when it comes to potential abuses that will stem from these experiments.

Analysis

Those in opposition to lifting the ban and increase funding has nothing much to say because they have created an impossible scenario. Their major argument is that proponents of stem cell research has never produced a single result that would validate their claim that stem cells can be used as a form of therapy or medical solution to degenerative diseases. However, this cannot be proved or disproved without federal funding. Thus, there is a need to level the playing field; they must allow funding to determine the truth of the matter.

On the other hand, the opposition should not be brushed off just that easily. They have a valid argument. If indeed the embryos are considered human then there must be something that has to be done to put limits on what scientists can and not do when it comes to experimenting with human beings.

One way to resolve this problem is to lift the ban but give a strict deadline for stem cell research to produce results. After the deadline all funding will be cut-off. This will give supporters the chance to prove that they indeed have something that can prolong life and help millions of people suffering from debilitating sicknesses.

Conclusion

Those who are in opposition to lifting the ban must not create an impossible scenario wherein they prevent the other side from proving that what they have is a viable solution to a very difficult problem and that is the development of a cure for such heartbreaking and debilitating disease such as Alzheimer’s and scoliosis. But they must not be allowed to spend federal funds without accountability. They must follow strict protocols and they must have a deadline to produce results or else their funding will be cut-off forever.

References

Dahnke, M. & Dreher, M. Defining Ethics and Applying the Theories. In Applied Ethics in Nursing. V.D. Lachman (Ed.). New York: Springer, 2006.

McCartney, J. Recent Ethical Controversies About Stem Cell Research. In Stem Cell Research. James Humber (Ed.). New Jersey: Humana Press, Inc., 2004.

Stojkovic, M. (2010). “Stem Cells: The International Journal of Cell Differentiation and Proliferation.” Retrieved from web

Abstract

Stem cell therapy has come to the attention of researchers, clinicians, and patients around the world because of its promising potential beneficial properties. Stem cell treatment is a method that uses the transplantation of cells to facilitate the process of cell regeneration. The modern sphere of health care experts to gain tremendous benefits from stem cell treatment because of the ability to grow cells in the lab environment, making this process highly cost-efficient. However, modern researchers have not come to a firm conclusion whether stem cell treatments could be useful in dealing with a wide variety of health conditions. Further clinical studies into stem cell treatments are needed to answer the question regarding whether such treatments can be truly effective.

Introduction

Stem cell treatments have acquired a reputation as promising therapy methods targeted at overcoming a large range of injuries and diseases as well as other conditions related to health. Importantly, the potential of this type of treatment has already been studied in the context of blood diseases. Stem cell therapy has saved the lives of children diagnosed with leukemia; moreover, progress has been made in the treatment of maladies of the bones, skin, and the surface of the eye. Investigating the effectiveness of stem cell treatment promises to be a worthy endeavor, and for this purpose, several noteworthy studies will be reviewed.

Background and Definition

Stem cells refer to a group of “cells that all descend from a single original cell and is grown in a lab” (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2013, para. 1). Stem cell therapy is a clinical method that implies the use of stem cells to prevent or treat health issues. Such cells are used to repair diseased and injured tissues in patients’ bodies. For instance, when a patient is diagnosed with heart disease, stem cells that have been grown in a lab are injected directly into the heart muscle to facilitate the process of repair (Mayo Clinic Staff, 2013). It is important to mention that stem cells have already been used in health care to treat diseases; however, most such treatments have been bone marrow transplants. In these cases, stem cells were used to replace damaged cells in the body that could not function properly after serious diseases or treatments such as chemotherapy.

Review of the Research

The discovery of stem cell therapy led to extensive research to evaluate whether it would be safe and effective to perform such treatments on patients who have been diagnosed with critical health conditions. For example, Nagpal et al. (2017) aimed to identify the effectiveness and safety of stem cell therapies among patients with stroke. The researchers concluded that administering several types of stem cell treatments to patients with early-diagnosed stroke offered high levels of feasibility and safety. However, the authors made a firm recommendation to further study the effectiveness of treatment by conducting bigger and more practical trials. The implications for clinical practice are mixed due to the challenges associated with the lack of sufficient evidence. On the other hand, health-care trends related to stem cell therapies suggest a possible benefit for patients with a variety of health conditions.

Volti, Zhang, and Teng (2016) conducted another noteworthy study that focused on exploring the effectiveness of stem cell therapy for treating ulcers in the lower extremities. The researchers performed a meta-analysis of randomized control trials, and their results showed that stem cell therapy (autologous type) had a healing effect on ulcers of the lower extremities and was associated with a reduction in the mean size of ulcers among patients. When the researchers conducted a subgroup analysis, they found that stem cells that had been collected from bone marrow and peripheral blood showed beneficial properties for healing ulcers. It is also important to mention that studies have found no association between stem cell therapies and an increased risk of negative health effects. Therefore, the study suggested that stem cell therapy could be an effective and safe method for dealing with such adverse conditions as pressure ulcers.

Discussion and Conclusions

The overview of the topic of stem cell therapy has shown that this innovative method of treatment requires further research and exploration. Even though some studies showed a positive correlation between the use of stem cell therapy and patients’ improved well-being, it is important to explore the perceived gaps remaining in this area of research to ensure that such treatments can be used safely for different health conditions. It is recommended for researchers in the sphere of health care to consider examining the use of stem cell treatments across a wider range of illnesses and conditions since the current research findings are not sufficient to support the possibility of using such therapies safely.

In conclusion, stem cell therapy is expected to provide a breakthrough in the treatment of adverse health conditions. With improved mechanisms involved in stem cell therapy and expanded clinical trials, this method of treatment can address the health needs of millions of patients around the world.

References

Mayo Clinic Staff. (2013). Stem cells: What they are and what they do. Web.

Nagpal, A., Choy, F. C., Howell, S., Hillier, S., Chan, F., Hamilton-Bruce, M. A., & Koblar, S. A. (2017). Safety and effectiveness of stem cell therapies in early-phase clinical trials in stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Stem Cell Research & Therapy, 8, 191-196.

Volti, G., Zhang, X., & Teng, M. (2016). Effectiveness of autologous stem cell therapy for the treatment of lower extremity ulcers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine, 95(11), 2716-2719.

Introduction

The benefits to society by the introduction of new medical technologies have been considerable. For example, the introduction of vaccines and antibiotics has significantly improved the well-being of people all over the globe. The science of stem cell treatments, potentially as or more significant than these other innovations, is beginning a new stage of exploration and growth that could be the forerunner of unprecedented cures and therapies. The present enthusiasm over prospective stem cell-produced remedies radiates from the new innovations of genetic biology.

Though one cannot forecast the results from basic research, there is enough information available to suggest that a good deal of this enthusiasm is justified.

Main text

The moral dilemma that surrounds the prohibition of aborted fetuses is the idea of abortion itself. Why would pro-lifers want to witness what they believe is a living being tossed away in vain? At least its ‘life’ could have meant something to humanity in a very real way. In 1999 alone, more than 850,000 abortions were performed in the U.S. (Elam-Evans et al, 2002). Whatever moral or political position, the fact is, all these fetuses could have served advance scientific and medical knowledge in immeasurable ways. Abortion laws vary state by state but the vast majority allow for abortions to be performed at least through the second trimester, 24 weeks into the pregnancy. This limitation was derived from the neurological point of view, which conforms to our society’s distinctness for the death as the absence of a cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. This same definition must therefore also define life as there are no alternatives to these two options. The presence of the EEG pattern of a fetus can be detected approximately 27 weeks into the pregnancy. An embryo is referred to as a fetus at about seven to eight weeks following fertilization. At about four to five weeks, embryonic germ cells, about 2 mm long, are developing (Morowitz & Trefil, 1992).

More than half of European countries and others around the world such as Japan allow for embryonic stem cell research in various degrees. Australia followed the UK in allowing the use of tissue from aborted fetuses, with the parent’s consent, for scientific experimentation. “Here in Australia we would be allowed to use it [aborted fetus for embryonic research]. There would be no impediment to that” (Robotham & Smith, 2002). According to Health-Day, a daily news service reporting on consumer health, Swiss physicians at the University of Lausanne discovered that a two-and-a-half-inch piece of skin from a fetus, which was aborted at 14 weeks, provided several million grafts that were used to treat burn victims. The study also found that skin cells from an aborted fetus healed burns faster than standard grafts. Patrick Hohlfeld, the prime author of the study said “the use of fetal skin has tremendous potential because taking just one skin graft gives you the potential to treat thousands of people” (Strode, 2005).

Scientists provide the valid argument that embryos cannot be considered humans because of their stage of development. Embryonic stem cells are collected from embryos that are four to five days old. In this stage of development, they are called blastocysts and are smaller in diameter than a human hair. When viewed by a microscope, the blastocyst contains fewer than 200 cells and had no features that are recognizable as human nor has the capacity to feel any sensations including pain. An embryo only four or five days old does not yet contain any cells that are dedicated to making up bodily tissues. “Stem cells have traditionally been defined as not fully differentiated yet to be any particular type of cell or tissue” (Irving, 1999). An embryo this young in a woman’s body would not have as yet attached to the uterine wall. Therefore, the viability of the embryo is certainly not assured and is, in fact, unlikely. It can be argued that it could not possess a soul as well, at least not an individual soul.

Summary

Political, not prudent considerations are the cause of the stifling of embryonic stem cell research. Other countries will be much further advanced in this science and therefore reap the financial benefits. However, despite the human health and economic advantages of embryonic stem cell research, the ‘moralists’ of the right-wing refuse to give up their flawed reasoning. This is likely the result of refusing to become educated on the issue while employing a neutral, unbiased frame of mind. Inevitably, stem cell research will be commonplace and hopefully sooner than later but until then many people will continue to suffer from debilitating diseases and paralysis. Where is the morality in that? Who are these people that consider the life of a living human being less important than a four or five-day-old embryo?

Works Cited

Elam-Evans, Laurie D.; Strauss, Lilo T.; Herndon, Joy; Parker, Wilda Y.; Whitehead, Sara; & Berg, Cynthia J. “Abortion Surveillance – United States, 1999.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Atlanta, GA: Center for Disease Control. (2002).

Irving, Dianne N.

“Stem Cell Research: Some Pros and Cons.” Written on request of Fr. Thomas King, S.J., Ph.D., Department of Theology, Georgetown University; President, University Faculty For Life, for their newsletter, UFL Pro-Vita. (1999).

Morowitz, H. J. & Trefil, J. S. The Facts of Life: Science and the Abortion Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press. (1992).

Robotham, Julie & Smith, Deborah. “Abortions Set to Fuel Stem Cell Research.” The Sydney Morning Herald. (2002).

Strode, Tom. “Life Digest: New Stem Cell Research Encouraging but Problematic; Researchers Find New Use for Aborted Babies.” Baptist Press News. (2005).

Introduction

Stem cell research (SCR) has been the subject of many controversies over the past few decades. Studies have shown that the exploration of the options that SCR provides may lead to the creation of the cure for diseases such as cardiovascular (CVD) health issues, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, and diabetes, to name just a few (Zhang et al. 85). Therefore, despite possible ethical concerns associated with the implications of SCR on human nature, I believe that the use of embryonic cells as one of the key aspects of CSR should be promoted as a possible source for solutions for numerous diseases and disorders.

Main body

The use of embryo cells in SCR opens various possibilities for addressing some of the most complex health issues, which means that the research has to be supported. SCR, in general, and the use of embryonic cells, in particular, are likely to have huge positive implications for healthcare and the management of diseases such as CVD, Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s (“Chapter 9 – Cell Communication”). Although the opponents of SCR may claim that it implies playing God and tampering with human nature, the positive outcomes that SCR may have should be explored and used to their full potential.

Conclusion

Due to the potential in managing the diseases and disorders that are presently deemed as incurable, I am certain that CSR should be continued despite the ethical concerns that it raises. Since the possible positive outcomes outweigh the ostensible negative implications, the research should continue, with a greater focus on the treatment opportunities that the utilization of embryonic cells provides. Despite the fact that the use of the specified material may be seen as challenging to the concept of morality and the current social norms, the treatment opportunities that it potentially has been tremendous. Thus, the opportunity described above should not be missed.

Works Cited

“Chapter 9 – Cell Communication.” Georgia Highlands College, n.d. Web.

Zhang, Qingxi, et al. “Stem Cells for Modeling and Therapy of Parkinson’s Disease.” Human Gene Therapy, vol. 28, no. 1, 2017, pp. 85-98.

Stem cell research is controversial because this raises questions like; Is it right to kill an embryo for cures to save other people’s lives? Or, if we don’t proceed, is it right to make those who can benefit from this research suffer? I don’t think that we should continue with this research because of many reasons, the most important being an embryo is living, and we humans have no right to kill other humans and not have consequences.

One might say that it is not cruel to kill embryos because they will be discarded anyway. This is true, but they can also be adopted by couples who would like to have children but aren’t able to. Another reason is that even if they are discarded, they will die with respect instead of in a Petrie dish where they can be mutilated. In the 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life, Pope John Paul II wrote: “Human embryos obtained in vitro are human beings and are subjects with rights; their dignity and right to life must be respected from the first moment of their existence. It is immoral to produce human embryos destined to be exploited as disposable ‘biological material’” (Pope John Paul II in Moran, 2003).

Another reason for not proceeding with embryonic stem cell research is that the cost for the research may be greater than the benefits, especially for the government. Some also say that approval to fund embryonic stem cell research may lead to direct federal funding for abortion, which is not allowed because this could be used as an argument that embryos are not human beings. On the other hand, there are many positive advances towards the future of science such as, scientists are learning about the earliest stages of human development, which can help detect birth defects that can contribute to infertility. Another advance is new methods for screening and testing new drugs.

This is because there would be less testing on animals and humans because they would use stem cells instead. (Walters, 2003) While this is true, scientists still only understand basic biology while trying to explore more advanced biology and physiology.

Another important reason why I am so against stem cell research is that it will ruin homeostasis in the environment. One of the most important factors to keeping homeostasis in humans and animals is random selection, which means that you can not choose what a person mates with or the outcome of the offspring. (Mahowald, 2003) This raises the question of and we are choosing the mates and how the embryo will look? They would say no, that they are just taking specific cells and using them to cure diseases. This is true but what about the children who are born with diseases? And who is deciding which embryos live and which die, playing God?

The final argument is that we may get the hopes up of people and these experiments may not even work. We will have taken everything these people know, such as hope and money, and they don’t even get a guarantee? Also, if it did work, where would the families get the money for rehabilitation and for surgery to have this done? The government would have to spend more money to help families pay their bills.

Even though many movie stars and families are for embryonic stem cell research, they still need to remember what they believe in, love and family. As Andrew Sullivan said in the New York Times, “Life should be measured not by how long it is lived but how it is lived” some thing can not simply be bargained or rationalized away and surly life is one of them.” (Holland, 2001) Some would argue that because human embryos do not resemble human beings, they should not be considered human beings and that they do not deserve the basic rights of all other living creatures. The fact is, human embryos resemble exactly what they are, human beings in the embryonic stage of their development. Human embryos, once formed, are whole living beings that have the ability to develop into adult human beings using resources from within itself.

It has been argued that location and stage of development should be a factor in determining whether a human being should be denied rights or not. (Juengst, 2000) Does it matter if the embryo is one day old or eight months old? If we use these arguments for the basis of our decisions regarding embryonic stem cell research, we are likely to contradict ourselves. Claiming that because a human embryo is not fully developed and able to survive on its own is a good reason to deny them basic human rights would be like saying a baby that was born prematurely, without the ability to survive outside the womb on its own does not deserve every medical attempt to save its life.

The argument exists that because some embryos are created in petri dishes and require implantation into a womb to achieve their full potential that they should not be considered human life, and therefore, can be denied basic human rights. Isn’t it true, however, that regardless of location, human embryos, whether located in a dish or a womb, carry the same characteristics? The only difference is one was created naturally inside the mother and the other was created by scientific means.

We fight to save children who were unfortunate to be brought into this world under less than acceptable conditions. Children born in Ethiopia deserve the same fundamental rights as children born in the United States. Food and safety is something that should be afforded to all human beings. Therefore, location is not a basis for determining human rights.

An argument that appears to be very contradictory is the argument for the use of existing stem cells and against the creation of new stem cells. This argument has conflicting ethical ideas in its reasoning. Saying that it is wrong to create new embryos specifically for destructive research because they are human beings but it is acceptable to destroy existing embryos because they will be disposed of anyway is contradictory reasoning. Human value is not determined by its expected lifespan.

If it is acceptable to use an embryo that is expected to last only a short period of time is should also be acceptable to perform open brain surgery that will surely end the life of a patient who is already dying of a brain tumor in the interest of medical advancements. Some might argue that allowing the destruction of embryos may lead to an increased tolerance to loss of life, including late-term abortions and treatment withdrawal for the severely disabled. This is why we should put a stop to this abuse and disrespect for human life before it is too late.

References

Holland, Suzanne. The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy. Boston: MIT Press, 2001.

Juengst, Eric and Michael Fossel. “The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cells-Now and Forever, Cells Without End.” JAMA 284.24 (2000): 3180-84.

Mahowald, Mary B. “Reflections on the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 46.1 (2003): 131-41.

Moran, Jim. “Embryonic Stem Cell Research.” The Humanist 63.4 (2003): 41.

Walters, Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research: An Intercultural Perspective, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14, no. 1 (2004): 3-38.

Finding the silver lining in some things might seem very difficult. However, with the emergence of nanoscale silver, it’s becoming much easier. Nanoscale silver is an antibacterial and antiviral chemical being marketed for use in wound and burn dressings. Some opponents have said that not enough research has been established to ensure the safe usage of nanoscale silver and question its effectiveness over similar products. For example, treatment for pancreatic cancer can be more efficient and successful using stem cell research. Nanoscale silver does serve certain medical situations.

The bacteria fighting nature of silver has long since been used small scale medical and other cleaning activities. However, the extended use of penicillin and other popular medicines led silver to be placed behind the competition. Large companies, Curad and Samsung, are both using nanoscale silver for antibacterial and antiviral applications. Curad, a large scale first aid distributor, wants to see the market continue to increase. Estimates are that the market will hit $3 trillion by 2014. (Hening, 1). Samsung’s applications of nanoscale silver include disinfecting laundry and dishwashing machines. The costs of this technology are relative when weighed against the repeated use of inefficient over the counter and prescription drug use due to bacterial and viral infection.

Although nanotechnology certainly has its place in the antibacterial and antiviral fields, when it comes to treating cancer and perhaps curing it, the best possible choice it stem cell research. Doctors are able to identify and target those cancerous stem cells, instead of blanketing as many cancer cells within an area and hoping for the best. (Dunham, 10). Locating stem cells would allow the doctors to extract those root cells and then curtail if not completely eradicate pancreatic cancer. Since pancreatic cancer has the lowest survival rate at just three percent, the benefits of stem cell research are immeasurable. This research also provides the best chance of finding effective treatment instead of retreads of older technology.

Furthermore, if by chance these cells could not be removed for various medical reasons, then stem cell research would also provide alternatives. Through operation or chemical treatment, doctors could alter the cells in such a way as to destroy the cancer. The cost benefit analysis of this position is outstanding. The first company to ever cure pancreatic cancer through stem cell research would not only set a historic precedent, but earn more than enough funding to expand research and development for years to come. Stem cell research, given the pancreatic cancer scenario, is the best option for a venture capitalist.

Technology has given every one new hope for a brighter future. Whether nanoscale silver or stem cell research, patients realize that the benefits of this technology go without saying. Nanoscale silver continues to be an emerging market for meeting antibacterial and antiviral needs. This technology has been used in both the medical field and homeware production. While silver provides many effective applications, stem cell research is the best alternative for curing pancreatic cancer. Although both markets look to see a significant rise in budgets within the nest few years, the benefits will remain priceless.

Works Cited

Dunham, Will. “Stem Cell Find Could Advance Pancreatic Cancer Treatment.” The Boston Globe (2007): 11 pars. Web.

Hening, Robin Marantz. “Our Silver-Coated Future.” OnEarth (2007): 60 pars. Web.